Law enforcers not to guard those flaunting power when whistleblowers unearth corruption: Madras High Court quashes cases against Journalist

In quashing over a dozen cases lodged against a journalist as baseless, the Madras High Court on Monday cautioned law enforcement officers that their role is to safeguard the citizens complying with rule of law rather than protect those who flaunt their power when corrupt acts are exposed by whistleblowers (V Anbazhagan v. State)..The law enforcing agency should be focusing on apprehending corrupt persons, rather than going after whistleblowers who bring illegal acts to light, Justice M Dhandapani said.."... it is to be pointed out that the law enforcing agency is for the purpose of safeguarding the citizens, who lead their life according to the rule of law and it is not for the purpose of safeguarding such of those individuals, who, with least respect and regard to the rule of law, flaunt their powers in an illegal manner to enrich themselves and their corrupt acts are flashed by the whistle blowers in the society ... the law enforcing agency should take steps to apprehend such persons, who are corrupt and not go after the persons, who bring to light such illegal acts", stated the judgment..In this case, the Court was prompted to pull up the State police for their lethargic and high-handed attitude in acting against Journalist, Anbazhagan. .Case Background.The cases registered against Anbazhagan accused him of extorting money from government servants by threatening to publish scandalous material against them in the daily “Ullatchi Alasal” if ransom money demands were not met. .The journalist had also been detained under the Goondas Act at one point of time. However, he was released after the High Court granted relief in a habeas corpus petition filed for the same. .The Court noted that, on the one hand, there are several cases where the police fail to register FIRs in genuine cases even if there is prima facie material to do so. On the other hand, the Judge noted that as many as 26 FIRs filed against Anbazhagan, despite there being little basis for such complaints. ."...the most disturbing feature in the whole episode is that ... the charge sheet does not reveal any materials, which are pertinent to point a finger on the petitioner and only minimalistic materials, in the form of evidence of some witnesses have been placed before the Court in support of the said charges ... This Court is also at a loss to understand as to the basis on which cognizance has been taken by the concerned Magistrate Court, when there are such glaring discrepancies in the materials and there is full fledged investigative flaw, which has led to the incarceration of the petitioner, which is wholly unjust and unsustainable", the Court said..Law enforcers acted as lawbreakers: Court.The Court said that in going after Anbazhagan without proper material, the law enforcers acted as lawbreakers.."The common man looks upon the law enforcing agency as his saviour and in that scenario, the fence should not eat the crops. If such a situation is allowed to surface, then the rule of law will vanish and there will be total lawlessness in the society, which will lead to anarchy", Justice Dhandapani added..He further observed that authorities higher up the hierarchy in the law enforcing department should keep a check on their subordinates so that their functioning is for the interest of the common man and not to perpetrate or guard illegal acts.."This Court is of the considered view that it is high time that the higher echelons in the law enforcing department take up the matter seriously and keep a continual watch on the performance of their subordinates so that the law enforcing agency acts within the rule of law and for the betterment of the citizens and the society", the Judgment stated further..Justice Dhandapani reminded the State of the cautionary note given by Tamil poet, Thiruvalluvar who said that that people should not belive any statement without dwelling on the statement first.."However, throwing caution to the winds and with scant regard to the rule of law, the law enforcing agency has started dancing to the tunes of individuals unmindful of the fact that its their ardent duty to be the protector of the lawful citizens and not to take sides with individuals, who are law breakers", the Court found..Classic case where law-abiding citizen made to run from pillar to post: Court.The present case is a classic example where a law abiding citizen is made to run from pillar to post to get himself absolved from the penal action after he brought certain facts to the notice of the law enforcers, the Judge observed further. The cases were filed against him by the police under the guise of upholding rule of law, but was aimed to safeguard certain unscrupulous elements, who are cobwebs in the governmental machinery, the Court added..The Judge made these observation upon finding that the police and the complainants (various government servants) had not produced sufficient material to back up their allegations against Anbazhagan. It was alleged that he had made phone calls, sent WhatsApp messages, personally visited and sent others to issue the alleged threats. However, no records of the same were produced.. In some cases, no explanation was given for delays in lodging the complaint. In some cases, the allegedly scandalous articles were already published. ."This Court is at a loss to understand how such a demand (for ransom) would have been made by the petitioner of such complainants when scandalous materials have already been published against them", Justice Dhandapani remarked. .This shows a facllacy in the prosecution's case, the Court opined, going on to add that the prosecution's stance defied logic and common sense. The Judge added that if any publication is defamatory, defamation proceedings can be initiated under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. .The Court was also not impressed with the State's counter in the case, with the Judge terming it "nothing but a piece of paper, filed just to satisfy the mandatory requirement of filing counter."."The counters filed in all the cases are almost similar in all aspects, except for the case numbers. No fruitful material, which is said to have been unearthed by the prosecution, has been stated in the counter to enable this Court to come to a different conclusion", the Court said..With these, among other, observations, the Court quashed all FIRs registered against Anbazhagan as well as the cases pending against him before the Magistrate. .Senior advocate Om Prakash and advocate S Kumaradevan represented the petitioner. Government advocate (criminal side) and advocate V Elangovan appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]